Well, first off, you still have ways of interacting with the program. If you haven't switched to another program, it will still be the "active" application, and if you have, you can command-tab back to it easily. While it is active, you'll have access to any menu item that doesn't depend on an open document. Examples would be about, help, preferences, open new document, etc.
As far as wasting system resources, it seems like more of a waste to quit it and have to initialize everything again if I open a new document in 10 minutes. If I'm not using it, the system will page out unused resources as necessary and page them back in when you need to use the program again. That's much lighter weight than having to re-initialize the program.
Sounds like somebody doesn't understand how shared libraries and forks with copy-on-write work. Operating systems these days are very smart. With shared libraries, there is only one copy of WebKit across every process that uses it.
Also, I'm sure that Google is smart enough to use fork() to create new processes. When you fork a new process, it doesn't actually allocate new memory - the new thread points at the same copy in memory until something changes. When that happens, the OS will allocate new memory for just the changed part, and continue to share the parts that haven't changed.
This means that each new process which will not actually use any extra memory until it modifies a data structure, and even then only the memory for the changed data structure will need to be allocated by the OS. Since it needed to be different for the new tab, it would have had to have been a separate variable in the new thread anyway, so the actual memory overhead of a new process should be surprisingly low.
So you deny multiple news articles saying that Apple doesn't pay for product placement (the USA Today article above, and the Washington Post article below), because you think the only alternative is that Apple would sue over free publicity? That's just silly - there is no reason for Apple not to encourage that sort of thing even if they won't pay for it.
Maybe it's the fact that they want 25-30 fucking dollars for a movie that I can get for $12 on regular DVD?
I should be their target audience - I have plenty of disposable income, a 52" 1080p LCD, and a PS3, but I still don't buy much on blu-ray, cause it costs too damn much.
Make it a 20% premium, and I'll buy it, but 100% is absurd.
Or maybe it is that some of us believe the media is ignoring important facts about McCain and giving him a reputation that is undeserved. These things seriously undermine the reputation the media gives him as a "maverick" and a "reformer", and people deserve to know these things.
I note that nobody here is disputing their accuracy.
It is of course true that there aren't many, but I've listed two now (again, just because you aren't interested in one of them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist). There's probably a good reason for that - the number of people needing to use a FS other than the included ones on OS X is tiny. Of course, now you are probably going to complain that ext2 doesn't interest you either, and that it doesn't support your favorite filesystem. That may be a reasonable complaint, but it's not what you asked for.
It is pretty hard to tell from your tirades whether you are talking about the ability to support pluggable filesystems, or the availability of those pluggable filesystems. You seem to be conflating the two. You start by complaining that OS X lacks the ability to support pluggable systems, but the first link from the AC's post proves you wrong:
Your most recent tirade seems to be a complaint about the lack of available filesystems, which I guess is a reasonable complaint, but that's not what you orignally asked for. Then you asked for a simple package you could download and install, and again, the original reply contained one (MacFUSE). Granted, that's a poor example, because it hides OS X's native pluggable FS support behind the FUSE pluggable FS support, but that doesn't mean that the AC was wrong. You can go and download the MacFUSE package, and the sshfs package, install them using the standard installer, and begin using a filesystem that works over SSH, no compiling necessary. (Incidentally, that one is super handy).
In short, the original reply by the AC was 100% correct, and you were 100% wrong, (and seemingly unable to comprehend his reasonable explanations) and somehow by sheer bluster, you seem to have convinced everyone of the opposite.
I think the point he's trying to make is that he doesn't have to worry about any infrastructure. He doesn't need a hosting account, he doesn't have to create a license scheme, he doesn't have to worry that if he gets popular his server goes down. All he has to do is pay Apple the $99 and he's good to go. That actually seems like it might be worth the tradeoff of having to go through Apple.
I actually think this is a common misconception. You can actually tweak the software quite a bit, I'd say at least as much as Windows, although probably not as much as Linux, since not everything is open source.
There are a ton of hidden configuration options, most accessible using the built in "defaults" command line tool, which is similar to regedit, although the defaults are stored in per-application files. Plus, if you know much unix, there's a ton of stuff you can do using the bundled command line stuff - having built in ipfw is awesome.
On the hardware side, you can upgrade CPUs on both the desktop models, and the towers will allow you to upgrade the video as well (but I admit it's harder to find mac compatible video cards). Obviously you can upgrade RAM & HD on all of them.
Ripping IE is not "karma whoring", it is a simple statement of fact. It is extremely common to generate a layout in Firefox, have it work perfectly in Safari, and have IE screw it all up. When you examine the reason for the broken layout, it is inevitably because IE 6 either didn't implement a feature or mis-implemented it according to the standard.
No, I am not happy for the extra work. I don't work on salary, and I do have to explain to my boss why a simple feature that should have taken an hour actually took 3 because I had to do it 3 times - once for standards compliant browsers, a second time trying to make the same code work in both standard-compliant browsers and IE, and then once to go back to the original and hardcode an IE specific workaround.
So, while it's true that iWorks is the only real option for editing them now, it shouldn't be too hard to convert them in the future - you can probably get them into ODF with some simple scripts, or potentially even simple XSL transforms.
Hello, Artie McStrawman! Sure, there are a few idiots out there that believe that OS X is infallible - there are also some idiots out there that believe the same about windows or linux. However, you aren't likely to find them around here. You'll find plenty of people that believe that OS X is MORE secure than the some of the alternatives, largely because their heavy use of open source and their default configuration that ships with no open ports, but very few that think it is "inherently secure".
The proof is in the number of successful worms and viruses for OS X, which depending on how you define them, hover right around zero. Yes, some of this is likely because of market share, but there's plenty of bragging rights associated with creating the first large-scale OS X compromise, so I wouldn't expect to see none. And of course, even if the relatively low number of security issues is because of market share, it doesn't make it any less pleasant for those of us who use OS X, especially since I'm not expecting it's share to go over 15-20%.
Anyway, if I accept your statement that OS X isn't perfect, will you stop bitching about smug mac users every time there is a discussion marginally related to Apple?
Can you explain to me what the hell is partisan about wanting to protect the 5th amendment? If this president issued an executive order that he and Cheney got to eat babies would you support it because he's a Republican?
I believe in this case he is trying to distinguish between displaying quantitative data in simple tables and displaying data in more graphical designs.
Seriously, if you like movies, the Alamo is a good reason to move to Austin. Or, at least, to visit.
I second that. I only go to other theaters if Alamo doesn't have the movie I want to see. And the food is pretty good too. And the special events - they'll often have themed food to go along with the movie, like white castle burgers when showing Harold and Kumar. I love taking guests from out of town to show them what they're missing in their own towns.:)
I thought it was obvious. I'm thinking it's fucking stupid to have two keys which do nothing useful in your operating system, when you could just as easily give them two functions that are immensely useful for people who edit lots of text.
They do do something useful, which is go to the beginning & end of the document. I realize that's not what you were expecting, which can be frustrating, but I don't think there was some grand UI ten commandments handed down on high which specifies that home and end have to go to the beginning of the line. That said, some other poster pointed out how you can change that.
An interesting argument, considering both the hardware and software for the iPod were developed outside of Apple, before Apple bought it.
Soundjam, which Apple bought to make iTunes, had many more features and a substantially different interface than iTunes does. It didn't have any of the library management and browsing features that make iTunes such a joy to use. So, I'd say that Apple definitely gets the credit for iTunes in terms of UI.
As for the hardware, it's clear that Apple was using a reference design and chipset from PortalPlayer, but the following article says that took an 80% finished reference design and did the UI in-house and final hardware design in-house:
HFS+ isn't an ideal Unix filesystem, because it doesn't have case-sensitivity by default, and it has features that would be wasted by typical Unix.
You can turn case sensitivity on in more recent versions, so that isn't a big issue. It has support for all the traditional Unix flags and permissions, so it appears they were thinking ahead. What are the features that would be wasted by typical UNIX? Extended attributes? Multiple forks for files? I'm pretty sure that Reiser, JFS, and XFS all have those features either implemented or planned. In fact, if you compare it feature for feature against those filesystems, they look pretty similar.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything, so it's sort of irrelevant to this discussion, but I think it makes a perfectly fine Unix filesystem for OS X, and I'd be very curious about how it stacks up to the other journaling filesystems listed in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
The latch is locked when the kensington cable is in. I don't remember where I read this, but I'm 100% positive.
Well, first off, you still have ways of interacting with the program. If you haven't switched to another program, it will still be the "active" application, and if you have, you can command-tab back to it easily. While it is active, you'll have access to any menu item that doesn't depend on an open document. Examples would be about, help, preferences, open new document, etc.
As far as wasting system resources, it seems like more of a waste to quit it and have to initialize everything again if I open a new document in 10 minutes. If I'm not using it, the system will page out unused resources as necessary and page them back in when you need to use the program again. That's much lighter weight than having to re-initialize the program.
Sounds like somebody doesn't understand how shared libraries and forks with copy-on-write work. Operating systems these days are very smart. With shared libraries, there is only one copy of WebKit across every process that uses it.
Also, I'm sure that Google is smart enough to use fork() to create new processes. When you fork a new process, it doesn't actually allocate new memory - the new thread points at the same copy in memory until something changes. When that happens, the OS will allocate new memory for just the changed part, and continue to share the parts that haven't changed.
This means that each new process which will not actually use any extra memory until it modifies a data structure, and even then only the memory for the changed data structure will need to be allocated by the OS. Since it needed to be different for the new tab, it would have had to have been a separate variable in the new thread anyway, so the actual memory overhead of a new process should be surprisingly low.
Uh, it's based on WebKit, so what does Mozilla code have to do with it?
So you deny multiple news articles saying that Apple doesn't pay for product placement (the USA Today article above, and the Washington Post article below), because you think the only alternative is that Apple would sue over free publicity? That's just silly - there is no reason for Apple not to encourage that sort of thing even if they won't pay for it.
Maybe it's the fact that they want 25-30 fucking dollars for a movie that I can get for $12 on regular DVD?
I should be their target audience - I have plenty of disposable income, a 52" 1080p LCD, and a PS3, but I still don't buy much on blu-ray, cause it costs too damn much.
Make it a 20% premium, and I'll buy it, but 100% is absurd.
Or maybe it is that some of us believe the media is ignoring important facts about McCain and giving him a reputation that is undeserved. These things seriously undermine the reputation the media gives him as a "maverick" and a "reformer", and people deserve to know these things.
I note that nobody here is disputing their accuracy.
Here in the real world, "unsupported" means "it can't be done", not "nobody has done it". So, when you said it was unsupported, you were just wrong.
However, just for fun, here is an example of an available 3rd party filesystem using the VFS support: Ext2 for OS X:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/
It is of course true that there aren't many, but I've listed two now (again, just because you aren't interested in one of them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist). There's probably a good reason for that - the number of people needing to use a FS other than the included ones on OS X is tiny. Of course, now you are probably going to complain that ext2 doesn't interest you either, and that it doesn't support your favorite filesystem. That may be a reasonable complaint, but it's not what you asked for.
It is pretty hard to tell from your tirades whether you are talking about the ability to support pluggable filesystems, or the availability of those pluggable filesystems. You seem to be conflating the two. You start by complaining that OS X lacks the ability to support pluggable systems, but the first link from the AC's post proves you wrong:
/System/Library/Filesystems/
http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2001/qa1242.html
In fact, every filesystem OS X supports is written using this mechanism, out of the box:
[gutro:~/] gutter% ls -1
AppleShare
URLMount
afpfs.fs
cd9660.fs
cddafs.fs
ftp.fs
hfs.fs
msdos.fs
nfs.fs
ntfs.fs
smbfs.fs
udf.fs
ufs.fs
webdav.fs
zfs.fs
Your most recent tirade seems to be a complaint about the lack of available filesystems, which I guess is a reasonable complaint, but that's not what you orignally asked for. Then you asked for a simple package you could download and install, and again, the original reply contained one (MacFUSE). Granted, that's a poor example, because it hides OS X's native pluggable FS support behind the FUSE pluggable FS support, but that doesn't mean that the AC was wrong. You can go and download the MacFUSE package, and the sshfs package, install them using the standard installer, and begin using a filesystem that works over SSH, no compiling necessary. (Incidentally, that one is super handy).
In short, the original reply by the AC was 100% correct, and you were 100% wrong, (and seemingly unable to comprehend his reasonable explanations) and somehow by sheer bluster, you seem to have convinced everyone of the opposite.
I think the point he's trying to make is that he doesn't have to worry about any infrastructure. He doesn't need a hosting account, he doesn't have to create a license scheme, he doesn't have to worry that if he gets popular his server goes down. All he has to do is pay Apple the $99 and he's good to go. That actually seems like it might be worth the tradeoff of having to go through Apple.
I actually think this is a common misconception. You can actually tweak the software quite a bit, I'd say at least as much as Windows, although probably not as much as Linux, since not everything is open source.
There are a ton of hidden configuration options, most accessible using the built in "defaults" command line tool, which is similar to regedit, although the defaults are stored in per-application files. Plus, if you know much unix, there's a ton of stuff you can do using the bundled command line stuff - having built in ipfw is awesome.
On the hardware side, you can upgrade CPUs on both the desktop models, and the towers will allow you to upgrade the video as well (but I admit it's harder to find mac compatible video cards). Obviously you can upgrade RAM & HD on all of them.
Out of curiosity, what is so bad about the IMAP service on Exchange? Are you worried about security, resource usage, or what?
Maybe it uses the same list of CAs that IE does, so you already had it installed? Seems pretty likely to me: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1470469&tstart=165
Ripping IE is not "karma whoring", it is a simple statement of fact. It is extremely common to generate a layout in Firefox, have it work perfectly in Safari, and have IE screw it all up. When you examine the reason for the broken layout, it is inevitably because IE 6 either didn't implement a feature or mis-implemented it according to the standard.
No, I am not happy for the extra work. I don't work on salary, and I do have to explain to my boss why a simple feature that should have taken an hour actually took 3 because I had to do it 3 times - once for standards compliant browsers, a second time trying to make the same code work in both standard-compliant browsers and IE, and then once to go back to the original and hardcode an IE specific workaround.
Nope, it doesn't read or write it unfortunately - I just tried. Since they're both XML, I wonder how hard it would be to write a converter?
Seriously, the iWorks formats have all the lock-in of Office but none of the ubiquity.
The huge difference between the iWorks formats and Office formats is that the iWorks formats are sane and well documented XML:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleAppl ications/Conceptual/iWork2-0_XML/Chapter02/chapter _2_section_4.html
So, while it's true that iWorks is the only real option for editing them now, it shouldn't be too hard to convert them in the future - you can probably get them into ODF with some simple scripts, or potentially even simple XSL transforms.
Hello, Artie McStrawman! Sure, there are a few idiots out there that believe that OS X is infallible - there are also some idiots out there that believe the same about windows or linux. However, you aren't likely to find them around here. You'll find plenty of people that believe that OS X is MORE secure than the some of the alternatives, largely because their heavy use of open source and their default configuration that ships with no open ports, but very few that think it is "inherently secure".
The proof is in the number of successful worms and viruses for OS X, which depending on how you define them, hover right around zero. Yes, some of this is likely because of market share, but there's plenty of bragging rights associated with creating the first large-scale OS X compromise, so I wouldn't expect to see none. And of course, even if the relatively low number of security issues is because of market share, it doesn't make it any less pleasant for those of us who use OS X, especially since I'm not expecting it's share to go over 15-20%.
Anyway, if I accept your statement that OS X isn't perfect, will you stop bitching about smug mac users every time there is a discussion marginally related to Apple?
Thanks,
gutter
Can you explain to me what the hell is partisan about wanting to protect the 5th amendment? If this president issued an executive order that he and Cheney got to eat babies would you support it because he's a Republican?
According to david pogue, it doesn't do tethering:
u its/28pogue.html?ex=1340769600&en=02ed70ebcedd4043 &ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/technology/circ
I believe in this case he is trying to distinguish between displaying quantitative data in simple tables and displaying data in more graphical designs.
Seriously, if you like movies, the Alamo is a good reason to move to Austin. Or, at least, to visit. :)
I second that. I only go to other theaters if Alamo doesn't have the movie I want to see. And the food is pretty good too. And the special events - they'll often have themed food to go along with the movie, like white castle burgers when showing Harold and Kumar. I love taking guests from out of town to show them what they're missing in their own towns.
Had you bothered to read the blog, you'd have seen that he already published the patches there:
5 _04.html#008042
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/200
I thought it was obvious. I'm thinking it's fucking stupid to have two keys which do nothing useful in your operating system, when you could just as easily give them two functions that are immensely useful for people who edit lots of text.
They do do something useful, which is go to the beginning & end of the document. I realize that's not what you were expecting, which can be frustrating, but I don't think there was some grand UI ten commandments handed down on high which specifies that home and end have to go to the beginning of the line. That said, some other poster pointed out how you can change that.
Soundjam, which Apple bought to make iTunes, had many more features and a substantially different interface than iTunes does. It didn't have any of the library management and browsing features that make iTunes such a joy to use. So, I'd say that Apple definitely gets the credit for iTunes in terms of UI.
As for the hardware, it's clear that Apple was using a reference design and chipset from PortalPlayer, but the following article says that took an 80% finished reference design and did the UI in-house and final hardware design in-house:
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,64286,00.html ?tw=wn_story_related
So yes, I think you can use the iPod and iTunes as examples of Apple's uniqueness in good interface design.
HFS+ isn't an ideal Unix filesystem, because it doesn't have case-sensitivity by default, and it has features that would be wasted by typical Unix.
m l
You can turn case sensitivity on in more recent versions, so that isn't a big issue. It has support for all the traditional Unix flags and permissions, so it appears they were thinking ahead. What are the features that would be wasted by typical UNIX? Extended attributes? Multiple forks for files? I'm pretty sure that Reiser, JFS, and XFS all have those features either implemented or planned. In fact, if you compare it feature for feature against those filesystems, they look pretty similar.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything, so it's sort of irrelevant to this discussion, but I think it makes a perfectly fine Unix filesystem for OS X, and I'd be very curious about how it stacks up to the other journaling filesystems listed in the article.
More info is available here: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.ht